| Rfc | 2483 |
|---|
| Title | URI Resolution Services Necessary for URN Resolution |
|---|
| Author | M. Mealling,
R. Daniel |
|---|
| Date | January 1999 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT, HTML |
|---|
| Status: | EXPERIMENTAL |
|---|
|
Network Working Group M. Mealling
Request for Comments: 2483 Network Solutions, Inc.
Category: Experimental R. Daniel, Jr.
Los Alamos National Laboratory
January 1999
URI Resolution Services
Necessary for URN Resolution
Status of this Memo
This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Retrieving the resource identified by a Uniform Resource Identifier
(URI) [1] is only one of the operations that can be performed on a
URI. One might also ask for and get a list of other identifiers that
are aliases for the original URI or a bibliographic description of
the resource the URI denotes, for example. This applies to both
Uniform Resource Names (URNs) and Uniform Resource Locators (URLs).
Uniform Resource Characteristics (URCs) are discussed in this
document but only as descriptions of resources rather than
identifiers.
A service in the network providing access to a resource may provide
one or some of these options, but it need not provide all of them.
This memo specifies an initial set of these operations that can be
used to describe the interactions provided by a given access service.
It also suggests guidelines that should be adhered to when those
operations are encoded in a protocol.
1. Introduction
In the course of formulating current proposals [2] regarding URNs
[3], it became apparent that requiring servers to manage all of the
desired functions or requiring clients to process varied information
returned by a server was unrealistic and a barrier to adoption. There
needed to be some way for a client to be able to identify a server
that specialized in the complex and another that specialized in the
simple (but fast). Also, in subsequent conversations it became
obvious that, in most cases, some of the operations were
inappropriate or difficult for certain identifiers.
The Problem
In the process of learning about a resource in the Internet, there
are a variety of possible functions that may be important and/or
useful, such as discovery of locators, names, descriptions, and
accessing the resource itself. A given service may support only a
subset of these; hence, it is important to describe such an access
service by the types of functions supported and the resources of
which it has some knowledge. For example, in the framework for an RDS
described in [5] the RDS itself may provide URLs [6][7], while the
resolvers may provide descriptions, URLs, or even the resources
themselves. The design of an RDS, as proposed in RFC 2168 [2], may be
more generous and provide all of the above.
This problem requires some well understood set of identifiers that
specify those operations. But an exhaustive set would both be
impossible and not very necessary. Thus, this document will list
several operations, as well as, lay out requirements for specifying
new operations.
The purpose of this document is to define a list of such functions
and short names for them and then use them in defining the interface
to an access service. Previous versions of this document referred to
services where the arguments were specific types of URIs such as URNs
or URLs. These services were called "N2L" and "L2L",for example.
Their use has been changed in favor of the more general URI form.
Design Criteria
To meet these requirements a fairly simple design criteria was used.
The need to identify the operation with some token such that its
operands, algorithm, and errors were known proved sufficient to meet
these requirements.
2. General Specification
To provide a framework both for the specifications in this document
and for future work to be written by others, the guidelines below are
suggested for documents that seek to specify new operations. Any
specification of a member of this set of operations should address
these issues with respect to its operands, algorithm, output, and
errors.
Due to the small number of listed functions, a registration mechanism
was dismissed as premature. If this list grows, a registration
mechanism will probably be needed.
Also, due to the experimental nature of this document and the systems
that use its specifications, the use of words like MUST and SHALL are
limited. Where used they reflect a case where this specification
could cause harm to existing, non-experimental systems such as HTTP
and URNs. Thus, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
RFC 2119.
2.1 Operands
Operands must contain the following pieces of information:
* name of the operation
* case insensitive mnemonic for the operation
* number of operands
* type of each operand
* format of each operand
2.2 Algorithm
The exact algorithm for the operation must either be specified
completely or it must be considered opaque and defined by the server
or application.
2.3 Output
Output must specify one of the following:
* there is no output
* the output is undefined
* the output itself and its content
* the fact that the output is an object and the object's
type and format
* any non-protocol specific errors
2.4 Error Conditions
All errors that are considered applicable across all implementations
and application environments must be included. Errors that depend on
the system conveying the service are not included. Thus, many of the
expected errors such as service availability or operation syntax are
not included in this document since they are implementation
dependent.
2.5 Security Considerations
Any security considerations relating to the service provided must be
specified. This does NOT include considerations dealing with the
protocol used to convey the service or to those that normally
accompany the results of the service. For example, a service that
returned a single URL would need to discuss the situation where
someone maliciously inserts an incorrect URL into the resolver but
NOT the case where someone sends personal information across the
Internet to the resource identified by the correct URL.
3. Encoding The Operations
To be useful, these operations have to be used within some system or
protocol. In many cases, these systems and protocols will place
restrictions on which operations make sense and how those that do are
syntactically represented. It is sufficient for those protocols to
define new operations within their own protocol specification
documents but care should be taken to make this fact well known.
Also, a given system or protocol will have its own output
specifications that may restrict the output formats of a given
operation. Additionally, a given protocol may have better solution
for output than the ones given here. For example, the result of an
operation that converts a URI to more than one URL may be encoded in
a protocol-specific manner that conveys information about the
closeness of each resource on the network.
Thus, the requirements on encoding these operations within a given
system are as follows:
* which subset of the operations are allowed
* how the operator is encoded
* how the operands are encoded
* how the error codes are returned
The text/uri-list MIME Media Type is specified in Section 5. This
Media Type is merely a suggestion for experimental systems that need
a simple implementation. It is included here merely as an example to
show completeness (however simple it may be).
4. The Incomplete Set
4.1 I2L (URI to URL)
* Name: URI to URL
* Mnemonic: I2L
* Number of Operands: 1
* Type of Each Operand: First operand is a URI.
* Format of Each Operand: First operand is encoded as a URI.
* Algorithm: Opaque
* Output: One and only one URL
* Errors Conditions:
o Malformed URI
o URI is syntactically valid but does not exist in any form.
o URI exists but there is no available output from this
operation.
o URI existed in the past but nothing is currently known
about it.
o Access denied
* Security Considerations:
o Malicious Redirection
One of the fundamental dangers related to any service such
as this is that a malicious entry in a resolver's database
will cause clients to resolve the URI into the wrong URL.
The possible intent may be to cause the client to retrieve
a resource containing fraudulent or damaging material.
o Denial of Service
By removing the URL to which the URI maps, a malicious
intruder may remove the client's ability to retrieve the
resource.
This operation is used to map a single URI to a single URL. It is
used by lightweight clients that do not have the ability to select
from a list of URLs or understand a URC. The algorithm for this
mapping is dependent on the URI scheme.
4.2 I2Ls (URI to URLs)
* Name: URI to URLs
* Mnemonic: I2LS
* Number of Operands: 1
* Type of Each Operand: First operand is a URI.
* Format of Each Operand: First operand is encoded as a URI.
* Algorithm: Opaque
* Output: A list of zero or more URLs
* Errors:
o Malformed URI
o URI is syntactically valid but does not exist in any form.
o URI exists but there is no available output from this
operation.
o URI existed in the past but nothing is currently known
about it.
o Access denied
* Security Considerations:
o Malicious Redirection (see I2L)
o Denial of Service (see I2L)
This operation is used to map a single URI to 0 or more URLs. It is
used by a client that can pick from a list of URLs based on some
criteria that are important to the client. The client should not make
any assumptions about the order of the URLs returned. No matter what
the particular media type, the result should be a list of the URLs
that may be used to obtain an instance of the resource identified by
the URI. All URIs shall be encoded according to the URL [7] and URN
[3] specifications.
4.3 I2R (URI to Resource)
* Name: URI to Resource
* Mnemonic: I2R
* Number of Operands: 1
* Type of Each Operand: First operand is a URI.
* Format of Each Operand: First operand is encoded as a URI.
* Algorithm: Opaque
* Output: An instance of the resource named by the URI.
* Errors:
o Malformed URI
o URI is syntactically valid but does not exist in any form.
o URI exists but there is no available output from this
operation.
o URI existed in the past but nothing is currently known
about it.
o Access denied
* Security Considerations:
o Malicious Redirection (see I2L)
o Denial of Service (see I2L)
This operation is used to return a single instance of the resource
that is named by the URI. The format of the output is dependent on
the resource itself.
4.4 I2Rs (URI to Resources)
* Name: URI to Resources
* Mnemonic: I2Rs
* Number of Operands: 1
* Type of Each Operand: First operand is a URI.
* Format of Each Operand: First operand is encoded as a URI.
* Algorithm: Opaque
* Output: Zero or more instances of the resource named by the URI.
* Errors:
o Malformed URI
o URI is syntactically valid but does not exist in any form.
o URI exists but there is no available output from this
operation.
o URI existed in the past but nothing is currently known
about it.
o Access denied
* Security Considerations:
o Malicious Redirection (see I2L)
o Denial of Service (see I2L)
This operation is used to return multiple instances of a resource,
for example, GIF and JPEG versions of an image. The judgment about
the resources being "the same" resides with the naming authority that
issued the URI.
The output shall be a MIME multipart/alternative [4] message with the
alternative versions of the resource in separate body parts. If there
is only one version of the resource identified by the URN, it MAY be
returned without the multipart/alternative wrapper.
4.5 I2C (URI to URC)
* Name: URI to URC * Mnemonic: I2C * Number of Operands: 1 * Type
of Each Operand: First operand is a URI. * Format of Each
Operand: First operand is encoded as a URI. * Algorithm: Opaque *
Output: A URC * Errors:
o Malformed URI
o URI is syntactically valid but does not exist in any form.
o URI exists but there is no available output from this
operation.
o URI existed in the past but nothing is currently known
about it.
o Access denied * Security Considerations:
o Malicious Redirection (see I2L)
o Denial of Service (see I2L)
Uniform Resource Characteristics are descriptions of resources. This
request allows the client to obtain a description of the resource
identified by a URI, as opposed to the resource itself or simply the
resource's URLs. The description might be a bibliographic citation, a
digital signature, or a revision history. This memo does not specify
the content of any response to a URC request. That content is
expected to vary from one server to another.
4.6 I2CS (URI to URCs)
* Name: URI to URCs
* Mnemonic: I2CS
* Number of Operands: 1
* Type of Each Operand: First operand is a URI.
* Format of Each Operand: First operand is encoded as a URI.
* Algorithm: Opaque
* Output: Zero or more URCs
* Errors:
o Malformed URI
o URI is syntactically valid but does not exist in any form.
o URI exists but there is no available output from this
operation.
o URI existed in the past but nothing is currently known
about it.
o Access denied
* Security Considerations:
o Malicious Redirection (see I2L)
o Denial of Service (see I2L)
URCs can come in different formats and types. This operation returns
zero or more URCs that are appropriate for the given URI.
4.7 I2N (URI to URN)
* Name: URI to URN
* Mnemonic: I2N
* Number of Operands: 1
* Type of Each Operand: First operand is a URN.
* Format of Each Operand: First operand is encoded as a URI.
* Algorithm: Opaque
* Output: One and only one URN
* Errors:
o Malformed URI
o URI is syntactically valid but does not exist in any form.
o URI exists but there is no available output from this
operation.
o URI existed in the past but nothing is currently known
about it.
o Access denied
* Security Considerations:
o Malicious Redirection (see I2L)
o Denial of Service (see I2L)
While URNs are supposed to identify one and only one resource, that
does not mean that a resource may have one and only one URN. For
example, consider a resource that one organization wishes to name
'foo'; another organization, in agreement with the first, wants to
call the resource 'bar'. Both organizations can agree that both names
'name' the same resource and that the URNs 'foo' and 'bar' are
equivalent.
The result is a URN, known to the server, that identifies the same
resource as the input URN.
Extreme care should be taken with this service as it toys with the
idea of equality with respect to URNs. As mentioned in several URN
documents, the idea of equality is very domain specific. For example,
a URN pointing to a weather map for a particular day and a URN
pointing to the map as it changes from day to day would NOT be
returned in this example because they point to do different
resources. Some other concept of temporary equivalence is at work.
This service instead deals with resources that have two different
names where there is a binding between the names that is agreed by
both name assigners. I.e., both namespaces MUST have agreed that the
each name can be used in place of the other and the meaning does not
change.
4.8 I2Ns (URI to URNs)
* Name: URI to URNs
* Mnemonic: I2NS
* Number of Operands: 1
* Type of Each Operand: First operand is a URI.
* Format of Each Operand: First operand is encoded as a URI.
* Algorithm: Opaque
* Output: A list of URNs
* Errors:
o Malformed URI
o URI is syntactically valid but does not exist in any form.
o URI exists but there is no available output from this
operation.
o URI existed in the past but nothing is currently known
about it.
o Access denied
* Security Considerations:
o Malicious Redirection (see I2L)
o Denial of Service (see I2L)
This operation simply returns zero or more URNs following the same
criteria and cautions as the I2N operation.
4.9 I=I (Is URI equal to URI):
* Name: URI = URI
* Mnemonic: I=I
* Number of Operands: 2
* Type of Each Operand: Both operands are URIs.
* Format of Each Operand: Both operands are encoded as a URIs.
* Algorithm: Opaque
* Output: TRUE or FALSE
* Errors:
o Malformed URIs
o URIs are syntactically valid but do not exist in any form.
o URIs exist but there is no available output from this
operation.
o URIs existed in the past but nothing is currently known
about them.
o Access denied
* Security Considerations:
o Malicious Redirection (see I2L)
o Denial of Service (see I2L)
This operation is used to determine whether two given URIs are
considered to be equal by the server being asked the question. The
algorithm used to determine equality is opaque. No assertions are
made about whether or not the URIs exhibits characteristics of URNs
or URLs.
5. The text/uri-list Internet Media Type
Several of the resolution service requests, such as I2Ls, I2Ns,
result in a list of URIs being returned to the client. The text/uri-
list Internet Media Type is defined to provide a simple format for
the automatic processing of such lists of URIs.
This is a copy of the IANA registration of the text/uri-list Media
Type.
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 97 08:36:07 PDT
From: Ron Daniel Jr. <rdaniel@lanl.gov>
To: iana@iana.org, rdaniel@lanl.gov
Subject: Request for MIME media type Text/IETF Tree - uri-list
Name : Ron Daniel Jr.
E-mail : rdaniel@lanl.gov
MIME media type name : Text
MIME subtype name : IETF Tree -uri-list
Required parameters : none
Optional parameters : charset
Currently, URIs can be represented using US-ASCII. However, there
are many non-standard URIs which use special character sets.
Discussion of how to best achieve internationalization of URIs is
underway. This registration will be updated with a discussion of the
URI charsets once that discussion has concluded.
Encoding considerations : Some transfer protocols, such as SMTP,
place limits on the length of lines. Very long URIs might exceed
those limits. Systems must therefore be prepared to use a suitable
content transfer encoding. This is anticipated to be a rare
occurance.
Security considerations : Client software should be aware of the
security considerations of URIs. For example, accessing some URIs
can result in sending a death threat to a head of state, frequently
prompting a visit from the relevant protective service. Accessing
other URIs may result in financial obligations, or access to
resources considered inappropriate by one's employer.
While the legitimate provider of a uri-list could exploit these
properties for good or ill, it is more likely that uri-lists will be
falsified in order to exploit such characteristics of URIs.
Additionally, the lookup and reverse lookup potential of the uri-
list may be attractive to traffic analysts. URI lists may also
reveal confidential information, such as the location of sensitive
information.
Because of these considerations, external confidentiality measures
should be available to protect uri-list responses when appropriate.
Interoperability considerations : none known
Published specification : Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) and
Uniform Resource Names (URNs) are two instances of the more general
class of identifiers known as Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs).
URN resolution methods frequently wish to return lists of URLs for a
resource so that fault-tolerance and load balancing can be achieved.
The text/uri-list format is intended to be a very simple format for
communicating such lists of URLs (and URNs) in a form suitable for
automatic processing.
The format of text/uri-list resources is:
1) Any lines beginning with the '#' character are comment lines
and are ignored during processing. (Note that URIs may contain
the '#' character, so it is only a comment character when it is
the first character on a line.)
2) The remaining non-comment lines shall be URIs (URNs or URLs),
encoded according to the URL or URN specifications (RFC2141,
RFC1738 and RFC2396). Each URI shall appear on one and only one
line. Very long URIs are not broken in the text/uri-list format.
Content-transfer-encodings may be used to enforce line length
limitations.
3) As for all text/* formats, lines are terminated with a CRLF pair.
In applications where one URI has been mapped to a list of URIs, the
first line of the text/uri-list response SHOULD be a comment giving
the original URI.
An example of the format is given below:
# urn:isbn:0-201-08372-8
http://www.huh.org/books/foo.html
http://www.huh.org/books/foo.pdf
ftp://ftp.foo.org/books/foo.txt
Applications which use this media : URN resolvers are the initial
applications. Web clients and proxies are applications that are
likely to support this format in the future.
Additional information :
1. Magic number(s) : none at this time
2. File extension(s) : .uris or .uri recommended
3. Macintosh file type code : URIs recommended
This media type is the product of the URN working group of the IETF.
Person to contact for further information :
1. Name : Ron Daniel Jr.
2. E-mail : rdaniel@lanl.gov
Intended usage : Limited Use
The text/uri-list media type is intended for use in applications
which utilize URIs for replicated resources.
Author/Change controller : Ron Daniel Jr.
Los Alamos National Laboratory
rdaniel@lanl.gov
In applications where one URI has been mapped to a list of URIs, such
as in response to the I2Ls request, the first line of the text/uri-
list response SHOULD be a comment giving the original URI. An example
of such a result for the I2L request is shown below in Figure 1.
6. Security Considerations
Communications with a server may be of a sensitive nature. Some
servers will hold information that should only be released to
authorized users. The results from servers may be the target of
spoofing, especially once electronic commerce transactions are common
and there is money to be made by directing users to pirate
repositories rather than repositories that pay royalties to rights-
holders. Server requests may be of interest to traffic analysts. The
requests may also be subject to spoofing.
The "Access denied" error message assumes a system within which the
operation is being performed that can convey an authenticated concept
of access control. Thus, the "Access denied" message should only be
returned by systems that have an appropriate method of determining
access control.
7. References
[1] Berners-Lee, T., "Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW: A
Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses of
Objects on the Network as Used in the World-Wide Web", RFC 1630,
June 1994.
[2] Daniel, R., and Mealling, M., "Resolution of Uniform Resource
Identifiers using the Domain Name System", RFC 2168, February
1997.
[3] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, January 1997.
[4] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",
RFC 2045, November 1996.
[5] Sollins, K., "Architectural Principles of Uniform Resource Name
Resolution", RFC 2276, January 1998.
[6] Kunze, J., "Functional Recommendations for Internet Resource
Locators", RFC 1736, February 1995.
[7] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L. and M. McCahill, "Uniform Resource
Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994.
8. Authors' Addresses
Michael Mealling
Network Solutions
505 Huntmar Park Drive
Herndon, VA 22070
Phone: (703) 742-0400
Fax: (703) 742-9552
EMail: michaelm@rwhois.net
Ron Daniel
Advanced Computing Lab, MS B287
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM, USA, 87545
Phone: (505) 665-0597
Fax: (505) 665-4939
EMail: rdaniel@lanl.gov
9. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.